That’s among the reports circulating over the past day. If it’s true, Secretary of State Clinton should resign her post and go public with what she knows.

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

I have my doubts about this. For one thing, Clinton hinted Thursday that she might not leave the administration after Obama’s term if he wins, something she has previous been consistent about. Why would she hint about staying on if an Obama decision has put her directly into this mess, possibly destroying her career? For another, Clinton was out front blaming the movie on Sept 14 during the transfer of remains ceremony. It was at that ceremony that she promised Charles Woods that the administration would go after the filmmaker, setting up the scapegoat. There’s very likely far more about Benghazi that we do not yet know, and today’s story about denied requests for assistance could result in serious legal consequences for all involved. The hint that she might stay, plus Clinton’s overrated competence lead me to doubt. But the story is out there.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Click here to view the 7 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

7 Comments, 5 Threads

1.
QED

If true, to go public would probably be catastrophic for down-ballot donks along with Obama. No way that she’ll do that before the election thereby setting the stage for a civil war in the wake of an Obama loss. If true, she may be treating it as be her hole-card for any deeper investigation that follows.

Just call me prescient! I was writing here when HRC came out with her “I take responsibility” statement that she had a copy of the memo she wrote the lazy bastard asking for more security or endorsing the Ambassador’s request. The reason her actions and the Administration’s actions are so contradictory is that she is in a bind; the people who own Comrade Obama also own the Clintons.

The only explanation for HRC’s meek acceptance of Obama bullying her out of the nomination is that the Soros Cabal yanked her chain – hard. Somebody has the evidence to destroy one or both Clintons and holds them in thrall to them with that evidence. So, they’ve been gaming, pushing the envelope of what they can get away with in messing with the man they hate, Obama, and his owners.

Having a little experience with the bureaucratic take down of political appointees, every one of my warning bells went off when Clinton came out with her half-hearted but minimally adequately loyal “acceptance” of responsibility but she then followed it with something about staying on. That was some kind of signal of a negotiation position. I don’t know just what is being negotiated but I know enough about negotiation to recognize it when I see it.

The Clintons can’t do anything that would cause them to be blamed for his losing the Election; Party support demands that, and Obama’s owners might pull the pin on them as well. There are limits to the usefulness of whatever Obama’s owners have on the Clintons because anything bad enough to really endanger them, endangers Democrats generally. Most here know that Democrat officeholders and appartchiks are traitors at heart, but the general run of the res publica really ain’t ready to deal with that. So, both the Clintons and the Owners have wolves by the ears.

I think the Clinton calculus is that the Obama regime will either do something so over the top that the Democrat brand is desperately damaged or will continue to flail in a stalemate with Republican leaders while the economy deteriorates steadily to the point where any credible Republican is pretty much a shoo-in in ’16. They’d like Romney to win and then be able to turn the media and the Left loose on him the way they were turned on GWB. That would give a fertile field for HRC in ’16. So, if Obama loses, HRC can “come clean” and in doing so take out the people who are associated with him. I know I’m paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

I’m more of a fellow doubter with Bryan Preston. One problem is the source. Ed Klein comes out with a lot of things that sound very plausible, but what attorneys close to the Clintons blab to him, and why?

In addition, there’s, well, everything else. Hillary pushing the video story, falling on her sword, etc. The easiest explanation for everything is that Hillary did NOT order extra security and that she’s an incompetent, treasonous, sociopath.

The most likley scenario is that the Administration wanted to avoid a “Jimmy Carter” Desert One like rescue operation that could end up getting even more Americans killed or to have the images on CNN and MSNBC of the locals blown to bits at hospitals at the cruel hands of the Americans. This was a political decision. I can’t count the times that I was sent in to situations that intelligence couldnt be considered because the circumstances were too urgent. As my crew chief Joe would say, I am getting the same prickly feeling about this as when the RTO was wispering on the mic; “come on in, the LZ is cold”.